Also some, if not most, movies shot with digicams look terrible unless they're done very well. I wish they'd stop using them just for the sake of using them.

We've got to be careful here. Some low-budget movies are being shot with consumer-grade digital camcorders, and I think that's great. Yeah, it looks pretty bad (mostly due to the awful gamma), but it allows movies to be shot for next to nothing and allows some people to be able to make a movie that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Of course it also allows people to make movies who shouldn't be allowed to, but that's another story.

But those bear no comparison to the digital cameras being used by George Lucas, et al. They are wildly more complicated, etc. They aren't using them jsut for the sake of using them. It allows greater ease and leeway in digital editing. That being said, I think they look like crap, which I wouldn't have expected. I thought, for example, that Attack of the Clones looked horrendous, expecially in the backgrounds (in addition to being an awful movie). This may be more due to how Lucas was using them, though. I'd expect digital cameras, generally, to look as good as film cameras. They're not limited to 1040x2048 or whatever digital projection is; their resolution is close to being film-grain small. But I haven't yet seen an example of a digitally shot movie that looks as good as film. I wouldn't be surprised or objectionable if it happens, though.